1 / 21

High Performance Parallel Computing with Clouds and Cloud Technologies

High Performance Parallel Computing with Clouds and Cloud Technologies. 1. 1,2. Jaliya Ekanayake, Geoffrey Fox { jekanaya,gcf }@ indiana.edu School of Informatics and Computing Pervasive Technology Institute Indiana University Bloomington. CloudComp 09 Munich, Germany. 1. 2.

salim
Download Presentation

High Performance Parallel Computing with Clouds and Cloud Technologies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. High Performance Parallel Computing with Clouds and Cloud Technologies 1 1,2 Jaliya Ekanayake, Geoffrey Fox {jekanaya,gcf}@indiana.edu • School of Informatics and Computing • Pervasive Technology Institute • Indiana University Bloomington CloudComp 09 Munich, Germany 1 2

  2. Acknowledgements to: • Joe Rinkovsky and Jenett Tillotson at IU UITS • SALSA Team - Pervasive Technology Institution, Indiana University • Scott Beason • Xiaohong Qiu • Thilina Gunarathne

  3. Computing in Clouds Eucalyptus (Open source) Commercial Clouds • On demand allocation of resources (pay per use) • Customizable Virtual Machine (VM)s • Any software configuration • Root/administrative privileges • Provisioning happens in minutes • Compared to hours in traditional job queues • Better resource utilization • No need to allocated a whole 24 core machine to perform a single threaded R analysis Private Clouds Amazon EC2 3Tera Nimbus GoGrid Xen Some Benefits: Accessibility to a computation power is no longer a barrier.

  4. Cloud Technologies/Parallel Runtimes • Cloud technologies • E.g. • Apache Hadoop (MapReduce) • Microsoft DryadLINQ • MapReduce++ (earlier known as CGL-MapReduce) • Moving computation to data • Distributed file systems (HDFS, GFS) • Better quality of service (QoS) support • Simple communication topologies • Most HPC applications use MPI • Variety of communication topologies • Typically use fast (or dedicated) network settings

  5. Applications & Different Interconnection Patterns Input map iterations Input Input map map Output Pij reduce reduce Domain of MapReduce and Iterative Extensions MPI

  6. MapReduce++ (earlier known as CGL-MapReduce) • In memory MapReduce • Streaming based communication • Avoids file based communication mechanisms • Cacheable map/reduce tasks • Static data remains in memory • Combine phase to combine reductions • Extends the MapReduce programming model to iterative MapReduce applications

  7. What I will present next • Our experience in applying cloud technologies to: • EST (Expressed Sequence Tag) sequence assembly program -CAP3. • HEP Processing large columns of physics data using ROOT • K-means Clustering • Matrix Multiplication • Performance analysis of MPI applications using a private cloud environment

  8. Cluster Configurations DryadLINQ Hadoop / MPI/ Eucalyptus

  9. Pleasingly Parallel Applications CAP3 High Energy Physics Performance of CAP3 Performance of HEP

  10. Iterative Computations K-means Matrix Multiplication Performance of K-Means Parallel Overhead Matrix Multiplication

  11. Performance analysis of MPI applications using a private cloud environment • Eucalyptus and Xen based private cloud infrastructure • Eucalyptus version 1.4 and Xen version 3.0.3 • Deployed on 16 nodes each with 2 Quad Core Intel Xeon processors and 32 GB of memory • All nodes are connected via a 1 giga-bit connections • Bare-metal and VMs use exactly the same software configurations • Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.2 (Tikanga) operating system. OpenMPI version 1.3.2 with gcc version 4.1.2.

  12. Different Hardware/VM configurations • Invariant used in selecting the number of MPI processes Number of MPI processes = Number of CPU cores used

  13. MPI Applications n n n C 1 1 d n n n d 1

  14. Matrix Multiplication Performance - 64 CPU cores Speedup – Fixed matrix size (5184x5184) • Implements Cannon’s Algorithm [1] • Exchange large messages • More susceptible to bandwidth than latency • At least 14% reduction in speedup between bare-metal and 1-VM per node • [1] S. Johnsson, T. Harris, and K. Mathur, “Matrix multiplication on the connection machine,” In Proceedings of the 1989 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing (Reno, Nevada, United States, November 12 - 17, 1989). Supercomputing '89. ACM, New York, NY, 326-332. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/76263.76298

  15. Kmeans Clustering Performance – 128 CPU cores Overhead = (P * T(P) –T(1))/T(1) • Up to 40 million 3D data points • Amount of communication depends only on the number of cluster centers • Amount of communication << Computation and the amount of data processed • At the highest granularity VMs show at least ~33% of total overhead • Extremely large overheads for smaller grain sizes

  16. Concurrent Wave Equation Solver Overhead = (P * T(P) –T(1))/T(1) Performance - 64 CPU cores • Clear difference in performance and overheads between VMs and bare-metal • Very small messages (the message size in each MPI_Sendrecv() call is only 8 bytes) • More susceptible to latency • At 40560 data points, at least ~37% of total overhead in VMs

  17. Higher latencies -1 • domUs (VMs that run on top of Xenpara-virtualization) are not capable of performing I/O operations • dom0 (privileged OS) schedules and execute I/O operations on behalf of domUs • More VMs per node => more scheduling => higher latencies 1-VM per node 8 MPI processes inside the VM 8-VMs per node 1 MPI process inside each VM

  18. Higher latencies -2 Kmeans Clustering • Lack of support for in-node communication => “Sequentializing” parallel communication • Better support for in-node communication in OpenMPI • sm BTL (shared memory byte transfer layer) • Both OpenMPI and LAM-MPI perform equally well in 8-VMs per node configuration

  19. Conclusions and Future Works • Cloud technologies works for most pleasingly parallel applications • Runtimes such as MapReduce++ extends MapReduce to iterative MapReduce domain • MPI applications experience moderate to high performance degradation (10% ~ 40%) in private cloud • Dr. Edward walker noticed (40% ~ 1000%) performance degradations in commercial clouds [1] • Applications sensitive to latencies experience higher overheads • Bandwidth does not seem to be an issue in private clouds • More VMs per node => Higher overheads • In-node communication support is crucial • Applications such as MapReduce may perform well on VMs ? • [1] Walker, E.: benchmarking Amazon EC2 for high-performance scientific computing, http://www.usenix.org/publications/login/2008-10/openpdfs/walker.pdf

  20. Questions?

  21. Thank You!

More Related